Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will mean for Indiana. Kaufman argues that the law will only allow for minority discrimination while Smitherman argues the bill is similar to many others, but would ultimately be better if replaced by At-Will contracting.

In the interest of increasing patient autonomy, opening the doors to true forms of euthanasia goes too far. Physician-assisted suicide, therefore, exists as the only viable option. Ethically indistinguishable (at worst) from current medical practices, dying with dignity needs to become a legally acceptable option for terminally ill people.

OPINIONS

Arranging catering used to be the worst part of my otherwise fantastic job as a fellow at the law school – until I met Chon Vo.

Chon has run his “Net Appetit” food truck at Stanford since 2001. Because his food was affordable and delicious, I started asking Chon to cater our events. Unlike many other caterers we’ve used, Chon was always a consummate professional, delivering fantastic food with incredible service. But because he is also modest and soft-spoken, it took me a year to discover that he’s also an entrepreneurial philanthropist. An MIT grad, Chon used the proceeds from Net Appetit to feed orphans in Vietnam.

So I am saddened and frustrated that the administration has expelled Chon from campus – not for any violation, but simply because the University has a new food truck policy and Net Appetit isn’t part of the new plan. As The Daily reported on Thursday, the University has contracted with a company called Off The Grid to issue permits for food trucks on campus. The administration notified Chon of this change just a week before the University closed for winter break. When Chon scrambled to apply to Off The Grid, the company told him all available food truck spots were already taken.

When Chon advised the administration of his plight, its response was essentially, “Thanks for your great contributions, but tough luck.” In rebuffing Chon’s appeal for help, Vice President for Business Affairs Randy Livingston acknowledged “the excellent food and quality service you have provided for many years through the Net Appetit food truck, and that you use much of the proceeds for charitable purposes.”

But Mr. Livingston assured Chon that “Stanford’s new program for food trucks was the result of several months of deliberation” and was “approved [by] the University President, with support from his senior management team.” The orphans may go hungry, but they can take solace in knowing the proper procedures were followed.

To put it mildly, this is not the way we should treat someone who has been a stalwart member of the Stanford community for more than a decade. Nor is the decision to cut off the flow of money to orphans in keeping with our mission “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity.” And on a personal level, Chon simply deserves better than to be ejected from campus without cause and with almost no notice.

It is particularly disturbing that the administration didn’t see fit to respond to The Daily’s request for an interview about its actions. If the University feels justified in ejecting a longtime community member and putting a charitable enterprise out of operation, it should jump at the opportunity to explain. It is hard to believe the University finds these circumstances so unimportant that they do not merit 10 minutes of an administrator’s time.

In an institution the size of Stanford, it is inevitable that some generally sensible policies will have negative unintended consequences for particular stakeholders. But when the administration learns that its actions are having such devastating effects, it is unacceptable to respond with the reliable standby of bureaucrats everywhere: “Sorry, that’s our policy.” In this case, that defense rings especially hollow, since the University has expressly reserved the right to change its food truck policy at any time, “in Stanford’s sole discretion.” In other words, there is simply no reason why the administration cannot allow Net Appetit back onto campus.

I applaud Stanford for experimenting with new ways to promote a variety of excellent food options on campus. But like any experiment, this one can only succeed if the administration is willing to learn from it. Let’s treat our community members with the respect they deserve and bring Net Appetit back to Stanford.

I completely agree! I have enjoyed Net Appetit since I was an undergrad interning at Stanford for the summer in 2003… I soon got into grad school here, and am now a postdoc. That’s a lot of lunches in almost a decade! I cannot understand — and find it hard to believe — that Stanford would expel this guy for no reason and with very little notice or community input. I love the new food trucks, but I still want Chon Vo’s food truck as an option, too. There are plenty of hungry lunchtime folks to go around, and if you’ve seen the peak lines at these trucks (or anywhere else on campus) then you understand having one more truck is a net positive for everyone.

irina zaks

I totally agree! Is there anything that we can do to have this truck back?

A

Stanford is becoming Columbia Journalism School! “That’s our policy… tough luck. It doesn’t matter if the policy makes NO sense, makes most people’s lives harder (except the administration’s and the school’s profits’), and could easily be changed with some simple, sensible thinking and a small amount of time from the administration.” (I attended both schools, and when I was at Stanford it didn’t feel anything like Columbia Journalism School.)

Derek DeRoche

Keep NetAppetit! This article really sheds light on the university’s unfortunate valuation of bureaucracy and financial gain above humanitarian as well as student interests. NetAppetit deserves to remain at Stanford not only because of its delicious food, but because of its noble cause and the simple fact that it did nothing to deserve its out-of-the-blue eviction.

Birgit Calhoun

I hope the University allow Net It to stay on campus

Seth Pile

This is sad. Reading through the details, I see no reason for Stanford to destroy this business that has served the community well for a decade. I also see that virtually everyone wants this truck stay as it has been. So why destroy it for some bureaucratic reason?

Submissions

Letters to the editor: E-mail Editor in Chief Joseph Beyda at eic@stanforddaily.com. Signed letters only. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for letters: 500.

Op-eds: E-mail Managing Editor of Opinions Aimee Trujillo at opinions@stanforddaily.com. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for op-eds: 700.

Opinions Columnists

Nick Ahamed The Muckraker

Mark Bessen The Fault in Our Systems

Winston ShiA More Perfect Union

Mysia AndersonEvolving

Johnathan Bowes Super Tuesday

Aimee TrujilloSuper Tuesday

Veronica Anorve Super Tuesday

Neil ChaudharyDouble Take

Mina ShahWednesdays in the World

Raven JiangQuoth the Raven

That’s what we said

This Board is worried by the increasing homogeneity of experience on campus. Stanford University is not doing enough to encourage the creative, wacky, eccentric environment that has made Stanford different — and an oasis — for decades. Rather than following the other prestigious universities, we should chart our own course that pushes students to think differently and act differently, if they so choose. —Vol. 246 Editorial Board